H -°, L 22° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 4°There seems very little sense in trying to get water from a dry well. Chancellor Biddy Martin, however, feels otherwise. The chancellor released a plan, the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, that would increase in-state tuition $250 and out-of-state tuition $750 annually for four years. The proposal has noble enough goals; half the money will go to financial aid to needy students, while the other half will go into better undergraduate education.
My objection to the plan is not the idea that
Martin believes the necessary funds for need-based aid and grants (that the university will not be able to cover from new tuition increases) will come from private donations. Private donations, however, come from philanthropic institutions that have seen their coffers dwindle due to an economic downturn unrivaled in scope and magnitude since before World War II.
It is indisputable UW needs to eventually charge higher tuition, but forcing incoming freshmen to pay $2,500 more over four years seems detached from financial realties. An out-of-state kid who needs loans to attend this university would have taken care of securing loans before the start of freshman year. Under this plan, however, that kid would have to return to the bank and ask for more money during a time when lines of credit have become notoriously closed. The rise in tuition should have occurred either more gradually or not grandfathered in currently enrolled students. Financial sacrifices to attend college are often painful; this tuition increase is rubbing salt in the wound. �
When the economy depresses, the chancellor should look elsewhere for more funds as opposed to squeezing the cash cows she already has. What may make the tuition increase hard for students to comprehend is the hype the new Union South has garnered. The new Union South may some day bring joy and prestige to this university. In the near future however, the new Union South will be a soaring $94.8 million monument to crushing student loans and long-term financial depression.
Before signing off on another tuition hike, the chancellor should have attempted to think outside of the box. I am aware raising tuition on cash-strapped students or allowing the prestige of her university slip was a choice that placed our chancellor between a rock and a hard place. I think however a middle ground could have been achieved.
Economically tiered pricing. It has been implemented at some private colleges throughout the country and should be brought to
I urge the chancellor to consider adopting such a tuition scale because it will not only allow money to flow through the university more freely and fairly, but also because it would continue to allow affordable education to people whose sole goal is to expand their mind and move up in the world. The university would be able to get the money they so desperately need and students could see their financial wells stay a little deeper.
Max Manasevit ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in philosophy.
IP hash: b43eab93
Oh. My. Gosh. All this whining over $750/ year? You morons don’t even know what a pittance that really is. Make sure when you graduate, you pass the extra #3000 cost along to your employer; you’re worth it, Madison grad.
IP hash: 606b821f
Two major issues with your plan. One, price discrimination only works in a monopolistic market. If UW were to adopt your plan, then you can kiss goodbye all your higher income families because they will opt for universities that haven’t adopted this absurd idea. UW will be no better off than it was before (some might argue it would be worse off). Two, unless applying for financial aid, no family has to report income to any university. Therefore there would no means of determining economic burden unless you apply for financial aid. Now you can circumvent this by raising tuition an amount much higher than it currently is (say $40-$50K) and forcing families to apply for financial aid. This brings us back to issue number one. Furthermore, you mention Union South. You really think stopping a project midway will help this university? All building projects have already been built into UW’s budget, aka your tuition. As long as you are on campus, there will be construction going on. That’s part of the deal of going to a great university. Also have you even given any thought to how Madison’s economy would be impacted if UW decided to stop building? That’s $94.8 million back into the local and regional economy. But you’re right, let’s freeze all spending and see where that gets us.
IP hash: 0bdb912a
It’s foolish to make the assertion that because you make more money, you should pay more for tuition. It needs to be one flat rate all the time, and changing it to a tiered system is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the times. Normally, students who aren’t well off can get loans and grants to cover tuition and can simply defer it to later when they can make some money with their degree. Sure it sucks to have to take on a bunch of debt, but unfortunately some people are put in that situation. However, the money you make with your degree can pay the loans off over a few years. Your system will end up punishing those students, because we all know people who go to college make more money. As such, because you worked hard, were successful, and made money, you should be forced to pay more. Who are you to tell someone that they need to pay more money than someone else because they work hard and make a good income? The system also doesn’t all the UW to budget at all, because what happens if the entire freshman class is from impoverished families? In state/out of state rates are perfect, simple, and they work just fine.
IP hash: f151ec33
“While it may seem economically discriminatory, it is in reality merely an extension of aid policies already in place.”
Could make the same case for slavery in the 19th century: “While is may seem discriminatory, it is in reality merely the same policies we have in place.” The fact that it’s policy does not make it right.
“Financial aid in any form makes some people have tuition bills smaller than the bills of their wealthier peers. Thus tiered pricing is discriminatory solely numerically;”
Like when a bank robber takes a million. It’s just a numeric discrimination?
“it is egalitarian because while the numbers may differ from student to student the sacrifice would become universal.”
Universal sacrifice - this IS the goal of egalitarianism and statism. Men cannot live by the principle of universal sacrifice. I vote for a life supporting principle: universal freedom.
IP hash: 606b821f
It’s not the extra tuition that pisses people off, tuition increases are a given today and I agree that the overall cost is for the most part irrelevant. What pisses people off is the fact that this money will go to pay for “poor” kids tuition. My parents make well over $80,000 apiece but i pay my tuition and housing by getting a loan and a job. When the money I earn by getting up at 4 in the morning is going to pay someone else’s tuition, yeah i get pissed. If you can’t afford tuition get a fucking job or go to MATC for 2 years. After all, work ethic will take you far in life, being a charity case just slows down people willing to work.
IP hash: 9986c23f
4:36- I agree with you completely. I always wanted to go to Madison but even though my parents make over $80,000, they’re resources to help me with college are limited as I have other siblings who’ve decided to go to college as well. So I lived went to a 2 year UW and lived at home for two years. My parents were happy with my decision and I lived with them for free and paid much less for tuition. After two years I transferred and will graduate next spring. I’ve made good decisions regarding my education and the little money I’ve saved shouldn’t go to someone else when I had to make sacrifices just to come here in the first place.
IP hash: 9002c8f1
I am a first-year out of state student and when I first heard about this proposal which would gradually increase tuition costs over the next few years, I was enraged. If the school wants to offer more oppurtunities to less-fortunate people then that’s great, but it is both unfair and an outrage to have current students pay for others to go to school. I do not agree with the solution presented in this article. You can not have a varying tuition according to family income, that just wouldn’t work. College tuition works as a flat cost, and if you can’t afford that cost then there are other cheaper college options out there (that’s just the way our society and economy work). So I don’t have a problem with how college tuition works, I just feel that this is an unneccasary reason to raise tuition costs. If they really want to offer these oppurtunities then maybe the school shouldn’t be spending millions of dollars on projects like Union South. I think it’s hypocritical to spend millions of dollars on these projects then say we don’t have any money so they take more from the students.
IP hash: 9002c8f1